Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper Number 3
Steve Bass
Sara Scherr
Yves Renard
Seth Shames
New Directions for Integrating Environment and Development in East Africa
Key findings from consultations with stakeholders in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda
Steve Bass
Sara Scherr
Yves Renard
Seth Shames
February 2009
New Directions for Integrating Environment and Development in East Africa
Download a free copy of this electronic publication at the Ecoagriculture Partners website: www.ecoagriculture.org.
ISBN-13: 978-0-9793871-2-8
ISBN-10: 0-9793871-2-4
Cite as: Bass, S., S.J. Scherr, Y. Renard, S. Shames. 2009. New Directions for Integrating Environment and Development
in East Africa: Key Findings from Consultations with Stakeholders in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda.
Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no. 3. Washington, D.C, Ecoagriculture Partners.
Cover photo: Fanny Schertzer (Wikimedia commons)
The Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper Series is an initiative of Ecoagriculture Partners, a nonprofit organization
dedicated to supporting innovators from the agriculture, conservation, and rural development sectors to
strengthen and scale up their ecoagriculture management approaches. Ecoagriculture Partners aims to improve
understanding and knowledge of ecoagriculture, facilitate collaboration among innovators and practitioners, and
mobilize strategic institutional change. Ecoagriculture is a landscape approach to natural resource management
that pursues three goals: conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services, sustained
agricultural production, and improved rural livelihoods.
The Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper series presents results of research and policy analysis on important aspects
of ecoagriculture theory and practice. The series seeks to stimulate dialogue among specialists and practitioners in
agriculture, conservation, and rural development. This paper is a joint publication with the International Institute
for Environment and Development (IIED).
For inquiries about publishing a paper in the Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper Series, please email
Copyright © 2009 Ecoagriculture Partners and IIED
All rights reserved. Sections of this report may be reproduced without the express permission of but with
acknowledgment to Ecoagriculture Partners. Contact [email protected] for permission to reprint.
East Africa is at a watershed moment in sustainable development policy, as enormous pressure mounts on
the natural resource base that is critical for its economic development. A common critique of sustainable
development interventions throughout East Africa and the developing world generally, is that too much of
their direction lies in the hands of outside actors. The approach of this project was to use the perspectives of
in-country leaders as a point of entry. The goals were to synthesize these ideas in order to distil the most
daunting challenges and fruitful opportunities, to reflect back to these leaders their collective insights, and to
promote their voices in national and international policy discourses on development and environment.
This study was carried out at the initiative of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, to explore
opportunities for sustainable development in the region, building on the Foundation‘s experience and
achievements in its population program in Ethiopia. The basis for this report is a series of consultations
carried out by the authors in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda between February and April 2007 to
gather perspectives from environment and development leaders in these countries on priorities for
investment in sustainable development. Our two institutions – Ecoagriculture Partners and the International
Institute for Environment and Development – are grateful to the Foundation for the opportunity to conduct
this interesting study, which has also helped us in developing our own strategies for action in the region.
The results of these consultations are fascinating, and also inspiring. They highlight ways to link new or
rapidly-growing economic sectors in East Africa (natural resource-based commodities, agricultural
investments, tourism, carbon offset markets) to national agendas for food security, restoration of degraded
natural resources, and poverty reduction. They propose ways to build on and strengthen national institutions
to guide policy formation under new economic and resource pressures and opportunities. They draw
attention to highly successful local initiatives that can be cost-effectively scaled up with more strategic
coordination among rural development, environment and economic sectors. While major barriers to
implementing these ideas exist, the leaders interviewed had pragmatic ideas for moving forward. These ideas
are thought-provoking and, we believe, deserve broader attention and discussion.
Sara J. Scherr, President, Ecoagriculture Partners
Camilla Toulmin, Director, International Institute for Environment and Development
February 2009
The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to the vast and varied array of contributors who made
this project possible. Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the nearly 200 individuals from Ethiopia, Kenya,
Tanzania, Uganda and elsewhere – representing national and local governments, country-based and
international academic institutions, local, national and international civil society organizations, bilateral and
multilateral donors, UN agencies and private foundations – for their input in the form of in-person interviews
and phone consultations. We would particularly like to thank Yeraswork Admassie of Addis Ababa University
and Lynne Gaffikin of the University of California-Berkeley for their thorough and insightful review of an
earlier draft, and to Walt Reid, Sahlu Haile and Sono Aibe of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation for
initiating and conceiving this work and for their inputs during the study.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the support from individuals who assisted in organizing
interviews, synthesizing information, and supporting the writing process. Other staff members of the
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) who contributed to this exercise include:
James Mayers, Head, Natural Resources Group (research in Uganda);
Nicole Armitage, Coordinator, Natural Resources Group (logistical and administrative support,
research and coordination of report production);
Lorenzo Cotula, Senior Researcher, Natural Resources Group;
Ced Hesse, Programme Director, Drylands, Natural Resources Group;
Gordon McGranahan, Head, Human Settlements Group;
Duncan Macqueen, Senior Researcher, Natural Resources Group;
Martin Mulenga, Senior Researcher, Human Settlements; and
Camilla Toulmin, Director.
Other Ecoagriculture Partners (EP) associates who contributed include:
Robin Marsh, EP Fellow and Director, Center for Sustainable Resource Development, University of
California-Berkeley (advice on extension strategies, leadership development, population environment
linkages);
Cosmas Ochieng, EP Fellow (general analytical support);
Joseph Mutua, KENDAT and co-coordinator of Kenya Ecoagriculture Forum (coordination of
consultations in Kenya);
Simon Thuo, Nile Basin Initiative, Uganda and member of Uganda Ecoagriculture Working Group
(coordination of consultations in Uganda);
Gaster Kayingi, Global Water Partnership, Uganda (coordination of consultations in Uganda);
Sajal Sthapit, EP Program Associate (research support, layout and design); and
Kendra Sand, EP intern (research support).
We express our deep appreciation to the main financial supporter of this work, the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation. EP also thanks TerrAfrica for their financial support towards the publication of this Discussion
Paper.
Steve Bass, Senior Fellow, IIED
Sara J. Scherr, President, Ecoagriculture Partners
Yves Renard, Consultant, IIED
Seth Shames, Project Manager, Markets and Policy, Ecoagriculture Partners
This paper synthesizes the findings of a study carried out by Ecoagriculture Partners and the International
Institute for Environment and Development on behalf of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to
explore opportunities for sustainable development in East Africa. It is based on a survey of nearly 200 leaders
in environment and development in Ethiopia., Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, as well as international experts,
and uses their views and recommendations as a foundation to suggest priorities for action towards sustainable
development in East Africa.
The next 10 years will be a critical period for environment and development in East Africa. The region finds
itself at a crossroads in the way that its environmental assets will be used. Growing populations, high levels of
economic growth, accelerating globalization and large-scale extraction often driven by demands and
investments from outside are placing unprecedented demands on natural resources and putting new pressures
on the livelihoods that depend on these resources. On the one hand, current trends suggest that the next
decade will see a continuation of massive asset-stripping and environmental degradation: the result of local
and foreign elites driving land conversion to unsustainable agriculture and poorly regulated extractive
industries. On the other hand, some very promising models for local and national institutions are rapidly
emerging; if engaged wisely with appropriate investment, these new opportunities could lay the foundation
for truly sustainable management of natural resources and support East African livelihoods, health, security
and economic growth.
Although there are clear differences between countries, a number of strong messages came out consistently
throughout the consultations and research that laid the foundation for the analysis contained in this paper:
environmental constraints, new investment opportunities, enabling policies and institutions, and rights and
access for communities. The most pressing environmental constraints include degradation of soil, water,
forests and other natural resources. Climate change is already posing a significant challenge in the region, and
its impacts, while not entirely predictable, will be increasingly felt. Population and demographic trends are
also central to the region‘s sustainable development context.
There is a consensus among people involved in sustainable development in the region that the top
environmental priorities for most people interviewed in all countries are (a) the need to reverse widespread
degradation of soil, water, forest and other key resources, and (b) to improve the means to access these resources at
sustainable levels and in a secure manner, in order to (c) meet the needs of economic growth at national level, and
livelihoods at the individual level.
Increasing demand for East Africa‘s natural resources presents new and difficult challenges, but also new
opportunities. The rising demand for natural resource-based products and environmental services in the
region is creating new markets, with the potential to provide incentives for more sustainable production
practices that will have both long- and short-term benefits for the producers. Funding for agricultural
development, from both domestic and international sources, could drastically change the structure of the
most important industry in the region. Policies supportive of integrated environment and development
initiatives are beginning to emerge, on paper if not in practice, new institutional arrangements are being put in
place, and conditions are therefore becoming more favorable to innovation and integration. Countries are
also increasingly working together to confront regional challenges. A growing number of locally-driven,
integrated, multi-stakeholder, landscape-scale initiatives are succeeding and present opportunities for scaling
up.
The study highlights the existence of an array of initiatives in the four countries that are successfully pursuing
integrated environment and development objectives. These activities come from community organizations,
national and local governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academia and the private sector.
For the purpose of the presentation in this report, they are clustered into the following categories:
community-based management of natural resources for local livelihoods; natural resource-based businesses
that benefit communities and the environment, including markets for environmental services; integrating
population issues into development activities; connecting initiatives within landscapes; promoting integrated
approaches in the formal policy process; and policy research and networks for advocacy.
The initiatives that have tended to be successful share a conceptual and operational basis in deliberately
integrating ecological, socioeconomic and political concerns. An integrated approach breaks down barriers
that may have impeded sustainable development in the past, to find approaches that are more appropriate to
the present conditions in a particular place. An integrated approach also places people and supportive
institutions at the center of the management and development process, sustaining and enhancing both human
and natural capital.
Drawing from the perspectives gathered during the in-country consultations, the context of other background
research, insights from past and current successful environment and development initiatives and the
principles of integration, a strategic approach to future activities in the field is offered.
This approach comprises three priority and mutually-reinforcing areas of activity:
Supporting and scaling up local initiatives that work by sharing knowledge from successful initiatives and
building capacity for local governments, intermediary NGOs, and farmer and community
organizations.
Mobilizing investment to promote integrated development through advisory and brokerage services in markets
for pro-poor sustainable development and a focus on pro-poor carbon finance.
Improving cross-sectoral and futures-oriented policy by filling policy gaps, demonstrating the benefits of
integration (economic, social, physical) to policymakers, revisiting the demographic and other drivers
of sustainable development and placing it appropriately within policy discourses.
The next 10 years will be a critical period for environment and development in East Africa. The region finds
itself at a crossroads in the way that its environmental assets will be used. Growing populations, high levels of
economic growth, accelerating globalization and large-scale extraction often driven by demands and
investments from outside are placing unprecedented demands on natural resources and creating new
pressures on the livelihoods that depend on these resources. On the one hand, current trends suggest that the
next decade will see a continuation of massive asset-stripping and environmental degradation, the result of
local and foreign elites driving land conversion to agriculture and poorly regulated extractive industries. On
the other hand, some very promising models for local and national institutions are rapidly emerging. If
engaged wisely and with appropriate investment, these could lay the foundation for truly sustainable
management of natural resources and could support East African livelihoods, health, security and economic
growth.
During 2007, Ecoagriculture Partners (EP) and the International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED) undertook a scoping study on behalf of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, surveying nearly
200 environment and development leaders and institutions in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, as well
as international leaders and experts in the region (see study area in Figure 1 and list of people consulted in
Appendix 1). The report was also informed by background literature referenced in the bibliography (see
Appendix 2), and by discussions held in early 2007 at the Packard Foundation‘s meeting on population and
environment in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia as well as the 10th meeting of the multi-agency Poverty-Environment
Partnership hosted by UNEP in Nairobi.
In conducting this study, Ecoagriculture Partners and IIED were anxious to seek and reflect the perspectives
of national and local leaders in environment and development in order to ensure that knowledge and insights
from the ground would inform broader international debates and development interventions. Dialogues were
held to take stock of trends, analyze the effectiveness of a wide range of approaches to linking environment
and development – whether connected to government, to local business, to African academic initiative, or to
endeavors at livelihood level – and to chart promising ways forward. These deep, dynamic discussions created
a rare opportunity to capture and convey messages from people within these four countries on how
environmental priorities should be integrated into development activities. They provided a sizable amount of
information and strong views from people in the region.
The consultations found that the top environmental priority for most people interviewed in all countries was
(a) to reverse widespread degradation of soil, water, forest and other key resources, and (b) to improve the means to
access these resources at sustainable levels and in a secure manner, in order (c) to meet the needs of economic growth at
national level, and livelihoods at the individual level. These needs are especially pressing for the rural poor,
who still depend critically on agriculture, and for whom population growth and fertility rates remain very
high. At the same time, rapid growth in urban areas will also create, and is already creating, significant
problems in water supply, sanitation and waste management. Although a major increase in agricultural
investment is under way, few of the large investments, whether by internal investors or external donors, are
designed to respond strategically to the environmental or demographic pressures cited by many of the people
interviewed for this study.
This paper synthesizes the findings of the study, and uses them as a foundation to suggest some priorities for
action towards sustainable development in East Africa. It begins with a summary of the sustainable
development challenges and opportunities in the region, followed by an exploration of examples of successful
initiatives in the four countries, highlighting some of the reasons why they work, as well as the barriers to
scaling up. The final section identifies principles for achieving an integrated approach at landscape, livelihood,
and policy-making levels, and suggests three strategic areas of intervention for integrating development and
environment in the region.
Although there are clear differences between countries, a number of strong messages regarding East Africa‘s
challenges are expressed consistently by people who are at the forefront of shaping a more sustainable future
in the region. The issues explored in this section represent the context within which future efforts for
sustainable development must operate. These include the degradation of natural resources needed to meet
human needs, climate change and shifting demographic trends. These drivers are linked to each other and one
cannot be fully understood in isolation from the others, and without a proper appreciation of the context.
In East Africa, environment and development agendas are seen as inextricably linked. The majority of people
in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are very poor (see Table 1 for indicative statistics of the state of
well-being in these countries). Poverty is both a driver and a consequence of environmental problems.
Economic, health and environmental concerns and issues impact directly on each other and unless all are
addressed in an integrated way, people have very few paths to escape from poverty.
East Africa possesses a wealth of natural resources and associated ecosystem services, but most are currently
under extreme pressure and many are being utilized unsustainably. While the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) in the four countries is now rising fairly quickly, insufficient attention to environmental planning
threatens the sustainability of this economic expansion. Much of this growth is, in fact, coming at the expense
of natural capital, including fertile agricultural land, forests and water. Lost value from forest depletion alone
is equivalent to 40% of Gross National Savings (GNS) in Uganda and 120% in Ethiopia, where it wipes out
the country‘s GNS (World Bank 2006).
Fertile, well-watered agricultural land constitutes only a small proportion of the land area in the four
countries, but agricultural production, the sector contributing to the largest portion of GDP in all four
countries, has grown very significantly in absolute terms (see Table 2). However, it is actually less productive
per capita today than it was 20 years ago (ASARECA 2005), due to a combination of rapid population growth,
degradation of the natural resource base of soil, water and agricultural biodiversity (crop genetic diversity and
supportive wild species such as pollinators), inadequate institutional support and weak markets.
Crop, livestock and forest production dominate land use, and the expansion of these sectors and associated
rural settlements has led to large-scale loss of natural habitats, wetlands and forests. Most of the countries‘
major watersheds are intensively farmed. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the close correlation between agricultural
lands and faunal and floral biodiversity, with many agricultural areas overlapping with the region‘s biodiversity
‗hotspots‘. Unless agricultural land use patterns and production practices are purposefully planned to have a
positive – or at least neutral – effect on ecosystem services, globally and regionally important biodiversity,
agricultural production itself and the rapidly growing tourist industry will be put at further risk.
The region faces serious challenges related to water quality and quantity. An estimated 38-40% of the
population in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, and 78% in Ethiopia, lack access to improved water sources (see
Table 1). Over-burdened drinking water systems are now also being used for irrigation. Watersheds are
already heavily populated and cultivated, in ways that have reduced water infiltration and storage and
increased soil erosion and sedimentation of dams. Serious conflicts are anticipated between water demand for
agriculture and industrial use critical for economic development, for hydroelectric power, and for local day-
to-day use by rural and urban populations.
All four countries have experienced both droughts and floods in recent years, with considerable loss of life,
environmental assets and infrastructure. At least part of this is the result of global climate change. If national
coping strategies for existing climate variability are weak, the signs are that future climate change will leave the
countries even more vulnerable, especially given the dependence of a majority of the rural poor on rain-fed,
marginal land (ILRI 2006; WWF 2006). However, East Africa is one of the few regions where some positive
glimmers can be extracted from the dire global predictions. Modelers predict that the region as whole will get
wetter by 2050, in contrast to many other regions of Africa where rain-fed agriculture could halve by 2020
(IPCC 2007). Still, according to Lane and Jarvis (2007), yields of wheat, barley and sugar cane will decline,
although crops such as yam, banana and strawberry may benefit. These projections on benefits should be
taken with caution as they do not take into account trends of migration to arid areas or pressures on farmers
as they manage shifts in crop varieties and outbreaks of new pests. Furthermore, there are few agricultural
institutions in the region that follow climate change debates, let alone work to build resilience to it. One
researcher expressed the opinion that ―it is very early stages in addressing climate change here – we are still at
the early political awareness stage, although there are traditional means to reduce vulnerability that we can rely
on.‖
Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda together have a population of 173 million, which is expected to grow
by 66% over the next 25 years. Population growth and total fertility rates remain very high among the rural
poor, even if they have come down over the last two decades (see Table 3). In many cases, rural population
pressure and environmental degradation have spurred migration to rapidly growing urban settlements that
lack infrastructure and services, aggravating problems of waste management, and energy, water and sanitation
shortages that undermine the potential social and economic benefits of urbanization (Bolnick et al. 2006).
While current and projected population growth is widely recognized as a major strain on rural communities‘
capacity to attain sustainable livelihoods, population analysis and planning are not well integrated into sectoral
investment or environmental planning. Policy makers often make the incorrect assumption that recent
declines in growth rates, largely connected to the tragedy of HIV/AIDS and to previous investments in
reproductive health, will continue without sustained investments in family planning, for which there is high
unmet demand. Whether population growth is a threat to the environment depends in part on patterns of
sustainable natural resource-based economic growth and investment (Tiffen et al. 1994; Mortimore and Harris
2003). As emphasized by one individual working on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the region,
―during these next 10 years, economic transformation must be accompanied by a demographic transition.‖
Despite daunting economic, environmental and demographic trends facing East Africa, new opportunities are
creating real cause for optimism, spurred by creative innovations at the level of communities, businesses, civil
society and government agencies, new waves of investment from within and outside of the region, shifts in
environment and development policies and the strengthening of some key institutions. Managed and
supported appropriately, these developments have the potential to greatly improve the region‘s prospects for
sustainable development.
The private sector, domestically and internationally, as well as international donors, have been increasing their
investments in natural resources. The domestic private sector has had a very short-term focus on income
generation, largely due to a lack of secure rights to land in many areas, the inability to raise significant finance
for long-term investment, and poor information about emerging markets for environmentally-friendly
products and services. Where environmental assets are concerned, ‗quick money‘ is now more easily made by
selling off minerals and timber to foreign buyers. A farmer federation leader expressed concern that
―currently the private sector is uninterested in sustainability.‖ Although private business in the region is not
significantly involved in pro-poor, pro-environment, pro-community development, there are some promising
initiatives including payments for environmental services (PES) schemes, certified agricultural and forest
products, ecotourism, and some examples of corporate-community partnerships. Some international donors
in agriculture, environment and development are also starting to show some signs of supporting integration
of environmental issues in their investments (albeit primarily climate change at present).
While livelihood security is increasingly dependent on natural resources, commercial demand for agricultural
and natural resource-based products, for both domestic and export markets, is growing rapidly. Rising
incomes together with rapid population growth have accelerated domestic demand for food and forest
products, but global trends have been the more critical price drivers for many commodities. World prices for
basic food commodities have risen steadily since 2000, but a dramatic spike between 2006 and 2008, while
benefiting some farmers, has created food crises in urban and rural areas throughout the world. In this two-
year period, the average price of corn increased by 125%, rice by 217% and wheat by 139% (Steinberg 2008)
– and very recently nearly all such prices have collapsed, again due to global trends towards recession in many
economies. While some of these surges are due to distortions based on trade policies and speculation, rising
demand for agricultural products from rapidly developing countries such as China and India, and policies
promoting biofuels in the US and Europe, have created real market scarcity. For example, China‘s overall
trade with Africa in 2006 at USD 55 billion was 10 times the level of 1995 (Canby et al. 2008) with imports
into China dominated by natural resource commodities including oil, natural gas, minerals and timber. Since
75% of the working population in the region depends on agriculture for their livelihoods, in theory these
trends could be a great boon. However benefits still accrue most to those who control marketing and there
are only small segments of these markets that reward sustainable production. Indeed, many exports to China
are illegal – resulting from illegal felling and trade from Tanzania (Milledge et al. 2007) and Mozambique
(Bossel and Norfolk 2007). Tanzania is currently the only country in East Africa with significant legal exports
of timber to China (Canby et al. 2008).
The recent investment boom in biofuels is a notable trend that has stoked both enthusiasm and concern. In
Ethiopia, 1.15 million hectares are either granted to foreign companies or are under negotiation for biofuels
production (Doussou-Bodjrenou et al. 2007). The Government of Uganda has even sought to de-gazette
national parks so they can be planted with palm oil and sugarcane for biofuels. In Tanzania, the government
is fast-tracking biofuels initiatives as a solution to energy shortages, and is targeting vast areas of its most
fertile areas of land. Some see biofuels as an engine of economic growth, poverty reduction, access to clean
energy, and environmental rehabilitation. There are indeed some clear win-win possibilities where, for
example, oil seeds are grown around farms, producing fuel which can be processed and used locally, thereby
saving foreign exchange; this is being promoted throughout East Africa. However, noting the fiscal and other
incentives in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries that are leading
to high demands from abroad, and the agricultural requirements for growing biofuels efficiently, others fear
neo-colonial financial and land tenure arrangements that will benefit only international investors and local
elites while replacing an ‗energy problem‘ with exacerbated water, food and/or ecological problems,
destroying the (agro)ecosystems upon which many rural communities depend and displacing people and their
livelihoods. The future will depend on the speed with which strong institutions and policies emerge to
regulate or provide pro-poor, pro-environment incentives for the industry (Milder et al. 2008) and
development leaders and practitioners in the region see this as an urgent priority.
A core challenge for sustainable development is that environmental values, whether positive or negative, are
not reflected in prices or other business incentives. Farms and businesses that produce in an ecosystem-
friendly way are usually paid the same for their product, but may incur more short-term costs than those who
do not. New markets are now emerging globally that promise to incorporate those environmental values
directly. First, these include eco-friendly product and service markets that privilege sources verified to have
been produced sustainably, such as organic and biodiversity-friendly food, fair trade products, certified
timber, and eco-tourism. Second are new markets and payment systems for ecosystem services, including an
accelerating carbon market, biodiversity protection and payments for watershed services.
Certified organic food production is growing rapidly in East Africa and provides an opportunity for added
value as a key market chain innovation to increase market competitiveness for African small-holder farmers.
Market under-supply and high forecasted growth give Africa‘s organic small and medium producers a real
chance of developing partnerships with domestic, US and European supermarket chains. Outgrower
agricultural schemes helping small-farmers supply agro-industry could be designed to help them meet
standards for environmental management, as well as product quality.
Tourism already accounts for significant portions of GDP in Kenya and Tanzania, and the overall the
number of visitors for nature tourism in the region is projected to double by 2020. Opportunities for
biodiversity conservation can come from environmentally-friendly tourism, in terms of financing protection
of particularly charismatic species, and design of facilities and infrastructure.
Carbon markets, buying and selling the right to emit greenhouse gases, have been booming since 2006.
Analysts believe that the global market reached 4.2 billion tons of carbon transacted in 2008, up 56% from
2007. These trades are projected to be worth USD 92 billion (Point Carbon 2008). Although the
opportunities in carbon markets are vast globally, East Africa has been largely left out. In fact, only 2.6% of
projects currently implemented under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), one of the primary
options offered under the Kyoto Protocol for developing countries to benefit from carbon markets, are in
Africa. For the four countries covered by this study, there are only three cases (all in Uganda) where money
has actually changed hands in a CDM project (Katoomba Group 2007). Although new CDM-eligible projects
are in the pipeline, East Africa has been largely left out of this and other regulated markets, those markets
having marginalized terrestrial offset opportunities, which East Africa is well suited for, in favor of energy
projects for which East Africa is not well positioned. However, some excitement has been brewing over the
opportunities that may be offered by a post-2012 trading regime (after the Kyoto Protocol expires), in which
payments for reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and perhaps even soil carbon
offsets may be included. Pilot REDD schemes are already being tested in East Africa, particularly in
Tanzania. Despite the challenges for East Africa in the regulated markets, dozens of land-based projects are
in the pipeline in the voluntary carbon markets (Hamilton et al. 2008).
While they represent a major opportunity and offer great potential, these markets also present a threat if the
funds are not informed by – and are not required to secure – the many other environmental, social and
economic benefits provided by land associated with carbon stores. The challenge will be to design these
projects in ways that bring positive impacts for biodiversity, watershed protection and local livelihoods. One
example of an effort in this direction is the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), a
partnership between leading companies, NGOs and research institutes which certifies projects that reduce
greenhouse gases, conserve biodiversity and support livelihoods.
Traditional payments for biodiversity conservation, made by conservation groups and tourists, continue in the
region alongside emerging opportunities from voluntary and regulatory mechanisms such as ‗biodiversity
offsets‘. These are payments made by investors in oil, gas, infrastructure and other activities, where even very
good design will result in biodiversity losses, to conserve or restore those same types of ecological resources
within the broader habitat. Such payments could bring significant resources to support public and community
conservation initiatives (ten Kate, Bishop and Bayon 2004).
Markets for watershed services, in which downstream users compensate parties upstream for stewardship of
water quality and quantity, are also rapidly developing in East Africa. For example, in the Uluguru Mountains
in the Morogoro Region of Tanzania, four villages are receiving payments from a public water utility in Dar
es Salaam to improve land use practices within the city‘s watershed.
These eco-market pilot activities are also having the effect of raising awareness among the private sector,
governments and communities of the potential economic benefits from ecosystem stewardship. All actors,
however, must proceed with caution. As one interviewee noted, ―engaging the full range of African voices is
critical in these newly forming markets, so that environmental and social standards match local needs rather
than just the values of foreign consumers‖.
In 2003, African governments agreed to invest at least 10% of their budgets in agriculture over the next five
years (Hanson 2008) and progress has been made towards this goal. External development funding for
agriculture is also increasing, even if some of the bilateral agencies have substantially reduced their support to
the sector. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which is supported by the Bill and
Melinda Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, has invested USD 330 million across the agricultural value chain
on seeds, soil health, market development, agricultural education and policy (AGRA 2008), and it is
committed to significantly increasing this amount in the coming years. The Millennium Challenge
Corporation has already invested nearly USD 1.7 billion in African agricultural development, and the World
Bank is also becoming a stronger supporter of agricultural investment in Africa. The China Development
Bank has granted loans worth several hundred million dollars to agricultural processing companies, mostly in
East Africa, with much more to come (Magnowski and Fertey 2008). As one interviewee said, ―the world
talks of having to feed Africa, but we should now consider the business idea of Africa feeding the world‖.
Domestic investment is still focused on commercial crop production for exports and supplying domestic
urban consumers, rather than for very local needs. International investment almost invariably focuses on
increasing exports. Developed country donors and foundations may have the interest of poor farmers in
mind, but not enough of this investment is designed to ensure environmental sustainability of these
agricultural production systems, much less a positive impact on other ecosystem services such as biodiversity
conservation or watershed protection. Those in charge of environment in the donor agencies are working to
make the internal argument to invest in environmental resources for economic growth, livelihoods and safety
nets. Meanwhile, the heads of those same agencies are struggling to respond to high-level political decisions
within many OECD countries that development assistance should include significant funds for climate
change mitigation and adaptation – appearing again to favor large-scale transfers to treasuries or through
multilateral development banks.
There are some bright spots, however, where conservation strategies have been integrated into agriculture
investments. The ―Productive Safety-Net Program in Ethiopia‖ and the FAO-Netherlands Partnership
Program, for example, are supporting initiatives that integrate environment with food security. The United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other bilateral development agencies, private
foundations such as the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Summit Foundation, the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Christensen Fund as well as conservation organizations such as the Jane
Goodall Institute, World Wide Fund for Nature, Conservation International and Wildlife Conservation
Society support a range of integrated projects that aim to address the linkages between population, health,
poverty, food security, cultural diversity and natural resources.
Policies and institutions necessary for the integration of environment and development are beginning to
develop in East Africa, although significant barriers remain. The region has exceptional analytical talent and a
group of excellent universities, but these resources are not being fully utilized to deal with the long-term
challenges requiring integrated solutions. National and local policies are beginning to shift to address
changing environment and development conditions, but often the policies are not being fully implemented.
Countries often work together and learn from each other, particularly when dealing with cross-boundary
issues, but regional cooperation needs to be strengthened. At the local level, integrated, landscape scale
institutions are emerging. In many of these cases, NGOs fill institutional gaps and play a lead role in
innovation and advocacy.
The former near-universal view of policymakers that the environment can be sacrificed for economic growth
and poverty reduction is beginning to fade, and there is increasing political will to resist, and to install
alternatives to, prevailing unsustainable forms of resource utilization. The New Economic Partnership for
Africa (NEPAD), through its Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) has
established sustainable land and water management as a central pillar. However, policy gaps remain between
sectors. Institutions responsible for development, environmental, agricultural and health planning and action
on the ground often focus narrowly on the sector for which they are responsible, and mechanisms for
coordination can be weak or non-existent. This is mirrored in the separation of professional and academic
disciplines.
Recent efforts to integrate environmental concerns into Poverty Reduction Strategies are a sign of progress,
but actors in the region feel that there remain major challenges with implementation and harmonization.
Indeed, in some countries, the pace of formal policy reform is well ahead of implementation, as noted by a
Tanzanian academic: ―Policies are reformed before they are tested and implemented, and people are
confused‖. Stakeholders and financial resources are also not yet sufficiently mobilized to support innovation
and scaling up, and the systems and capacities needed to turn policy into action remain weak and under-
funded. This is particularly true at the local level where rapid and uncoordinated processes to devolve power
from the central government have left some districts unaware of policies or ill-equipped to implement them.
As a Tanzanian group concluded, ―we have constructed a small bridge between environment and
development in planning processes, but not in investment, empowerment and action.‖ (Box 6 describes some
of Tanzania‘s administrative breakthroughs that are more conducive to environmental integration – notably
in planning and budgeting).
The colonial histories of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda fostered some regional collaboration, which has
regained momentum particularly with the revival of the East African Community (EAC) in 1999.
Strengthening regional relationships has the potential to enhance economic growth and environmental
governance, particularly on cross-border issues, as reflected in initiatives such as the Nile Basin Initiative, the
Lake Victoria Initiative and a number of biodiversity conservation programs. Many informants in this study
endorsed the idea of future activities for sustainable development being built on collaboration. Ethiopia also
has links within the region, but these are weaker and more efforts are needed to involve Ethiopian institutions
more directly in regional processes.
The region has a wealth of experience in locally tested, cross-sectoral approaches to resource management
and participatory development. These are often led by community organizations and operate at a landscape
scale. However, projects like these are often not recognized by policymakers and donors, have poor access to
financing, and funders have (generally mistaken) perceptions of their low financial returns. One researcher in
Ethiopia echoed a widespread sentiment that ―most necessary knowledge [for sustainable development] is
already in this country; we just need to scale up. It‘s an issue of communication.‖
NGOs are playing an evolving role in linking and bridging sectors. Over the past few decades, governments
in East Africa have shifted considerably, from viewing these groups as a threat to recognizing their valuable
role in grassroots implementation of public agendas, often filling gaps in government services and capacity.
The situation however varies between countries, with Ethiopia having public policies that are less favorable to
civil society than the other countries of the region, resulting in a weaker capacity among NGOs. Many NGOs
focus on local sustainable development and resource management, some concentrate on managing natural
resources to provide environmental services for human benefit, while others promote an agenda of protecting
globally significant biodiversity. Many NGOs are forming strategic partnerships with government agencies,
private sector and grassroots organizations, and strengthening their technical capacities for scaling up
successful initiatives while continuing to pilot innovative approaches.
To achieve sustainable development, East African countries must manage natural resources to provide for the
livelihood needs of local producers and consumers, to meet the demands of export markets, and to sustain
the functions of ecosystems. These objectives must all be met within considerable environmental and
institutional constraints. A barrier consistently found throughout the consultations and research in East
Africa is that sectors suffer from insufficient linkages between each other. Ministries do not work sufficiently
together in their planning processes, and they are not systematically seeking out synergies and efficiencies
from integrated projects. Agricultural investments do not sufficiently take into account ecological context,
while environmental investments do not have the best information on associated livelihood needs and market
demands. Priority areas for biodiversity are not reflected in infrastructure planning.
In the course of this study, numerous initiatives were identified in the four countries that do pursue integrated
solutions. These advances and successes are drawn from all quarters of society including community
organizations, national and local governments, NGOs, academic institutions and the private sector. They can
be clustered around the following categories:
Community-based management of natural resources for local livelihoods;
Innovations in natural resource-based business that benefit communities and the environment,
including markets for environmental services;
Integrating population issues into development activities;
Connecting initiatives within landscapes;
Promoting integrated approaches in the formal policy; and
Policy research and networks for advocacy.
There are many locally proven approaches for environmentally sound resource management and restoration
in agricultural landscapes. Communities tend to recognize the necessity of integrated approaches to local
environmental and economic management in a way that policymakers or international donors might not.
There are successful cases of community-driven development, but they require appropriate support in order
to be scaled up, including secure access to natural resources, tenure rights over resources, and support for
sharing knowledge within and between communities.
Although the literature has been historically poor on indigenous or farmer-driven approaches, there is now
convincing documentation of the concrete benefits of appropriate natural resource and ecosystem
management to agricultural productivity and income in East African farming systems. Important syntheses
have been produced by the Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA), the Association for Strengthening
Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
and other research centers and universities, as well as by the Sub-Saharan Africa assessment for the
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).
New approaches working closely with community-based organizations, such as women, farmer, forest user
and conservation groups and watershed management committees, are proving more flexible and cost-
effective than previous programs administered directly by government bureaucracies. These local initiatives
see little separation between their efforts to promote livelihoods and conservation. In the case of the Kijabe
Environmental Volunteers (KENVO), for example, a community forest conservation group is now
supporting local agricultural development (Box 1). Sustainable land management (SLM) initiatives, like the
Association for Conservation Tillage, Landcare and national programs associated with TerrAfrica, are
promoting conservation tillage, rainwater harvesting, agroforestry and other technologies and local collective
action that span production and conservation action. Small grants for farmer organizations from the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Government of the Netherlands have supported farm
investments with environmental benefits. The African Wildlife Foundation and the Jane Goodall Institute
have both begun major programs of work to support agricultural development with small farmer
organizations working in and around critical wildlife habitats.
Although current patterns of investment and business development in Africa do not favor pro-poor and pro-
environment enterprise, emerging ethical, natural resource-based innovations have the potential to bring
substantial benefits to communities while preserving and enhancing the environment. The Coastal Farm
Forest Association of Tanzania is one successful case (see Box 2). Similar initiatives and promises exist in
forestry, honey and other non-timber forest products, eco-certified agricultural products and eco-tourism. To
improve their market position, small- and medium-scale enterprises need to pursue strategies such as vertical
or horizontal integration, improved quality and efficiency, and more targeted marketing. A key factor in
establishing such business innovations has been the provision of technology and business training for local
farmers and businesses, including management advisory services, market information services, market
intermediation, and technical assistance and training (Scherr et al. 2003).
Markets for ecosystem services have begun to
develop in all four countries. Carbon markets, in
particular, offer incentives to mobilize investments
to conserve or rebuild forests and vegetative cover,
tipping the financial balance in favor of higher-
biomass, higher-productivity, sustainable
agriculture, agroforestry and community forestry
systems. Such investments can also be designed to
help communities to adapt to climate change. As
noted earlier, the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) has largely bypassed East Africa largely
because of the difficulty of registering land based
offset projects. However, efforts are being made to
improve East Africa‘s prospects. A UNDP and the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
CDM capacity-building project is including Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia. Pro-Poor Rewards for
Environmental Services in Africa (PRESA) is providing technical and policy support to small-holder PES
projects. The conservation organization WWF has teamed up with rural development NGOs, CARE and
their national partners to promote payments for ecosystem services with farmers in Uganda and Tanzania.
The Katoomba Group (see Box 3) is working in East Africa on ‗incubator‘ programs to bring ecosystem
service products, including carbon, biodiversity and water products, to market.
Population issues are real, but they cannot be addressed in isolation from other issues of development (De
Souza et al 2003). The East African experience shows that a focus on population, in many instances, provides
a useful point of entry for an integrated development approach in areas where population, agriculture and
environment are critical and inter-connected. This perspective can also bring the under-appreciated needs and
perspectives of women and children into focus. Integrated population initiatives tend to succeed when they
link conservation and agricultural groups with decentralized health and family planning services; empower
women and households; involve local governments; cross-train participating institutions; and mobilize
funding from other donors and government agencies with related programs.
As illustrated by the pioneering work done in Ethiopia with support from the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, this integration at the level of field interventions can usefully inform advocacy work and guide
policy reform, by highlighting the environmental factors that are responsible for migration and other
demographic trends as well as the environmental impacts of demography, by informing the definition of
compatible national goals and targets in population and environment, by identifying policy measures and
directions that can help society move towards these goals and targets, and by revealing the policy instruments
– in population, environment, or other sectors – that may have perverse, negative impacts on sustainability
(Haile 2004).
Many district governments in the four countries covered in this study have established cross-agency and
multi-stakeholder forums, as have some large watershed and ecosystem-scale projects (see Box 5 for example
of Landcare in Uganda). National governments in all four countries are also supporting decentralized district-
level planning. Practical poverty-environment solutions, even when successful, are scattered throughout the
region and are often poorly known in their own landscape. Organizations are needed to document,
disseminate, connect to other groups and scale up these approaches, and there are numerous examples of
ones that are currently successful.
In western Kenya, a longstanding platform for coordinating agroforestry initiatives among agencies and
farmer groups is considered quite successful. Platforms in Uganda include district-level multi-stakeholder
forums and Substantive Farmer Forums, with an estimated reach of about 10,000 households per district. At
least 49 multi-stakeholder forums are operational, primarily established through Uganda National Agricultural
Advisory Services (NAADS) investment. In Kenya, by contrast, investment from national governments or
major donors has been minimal. The establishment and financing of existing platforms has been driven by
the farmers themselves, with costs covered by membership fees or by NGOs. Platforms are small in reach
and focus and primarily concerned with facilitating market access, through bulk buying of inputs and sales of
farmer produce. While the situation differs between countries, it is clear that the basis exists, on the ground,
for a more systematic effort aimed at linking, strengthening and scaling up community initiatives.
Substantial progress has been made in the past few years in reforming national policy frameworks, with all
governments in the region having developed comprehensive and often quite progressive poverty reduction
strategy documents, as well as having formulated or revised national policies dealing with environment,
population and other sectors relevant to sustainable development. All these documents pay attention to the
need for improving integration, both horizontally between sectors and vertically between national and local
levels. Tanzania‘s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty, known as MKUKUTA (see Box
6), and the Kenya 2030 Vision are good examples of policy statements that deal with all the critical issues and
that offer integrated strategies to achieve stated objectives of poverty reduction and sustainable development.
But – in these as in other similar cases – the challenges lie in the translation of the policy intents and
directions into concrete changes in governance, capacities, production systems and the delivery of social
services.
The MKUKUTA experience suggests that the process of policy formulation is as important as the content of
the policy that is being formulated, and that the type and quality of the process used will determine, to a large
extent, how the policy will be implemented. ―Unless you change the way governments make policy, you won‘t
have lasting impact‖, says a United Nations official with extensive experience in Africa. Participatory
processes of policy formulation have shown that they can help in generating more credible and more
grounded analyses of issues and needs, that they create new linkages between institutions and sectors that are
not used to working together, that they nurture a sense of ownership of and commitment to the policy
directions and measures identified, and that they build transparency and legitimacy. In other words, the
processes themselves begin to ‗wire together‘ the new institutions required for integrating environment and
development.
To promote sustainable development and environmental management at a scale that will make a difference to
countries in East Africa, institutions devoted to policy research and constructive, ‗evidence-based‘ advocacy
are critical. ―Advocacy can be an instrument of leveraging because it creates awareness of opportunities and
promotes partnerships‖, says a Tanzanian academic who also works as a development consultant. As one
policy analyst pointed out, ―some people still think policies are immutable, and they perceive any policy
change as a ‗coup‘,‖ but another professor noted that ―policymakers actually appreciate integrated analysis
that reveal where change is needed.‖
Many of those interviewed pointed to international organizations like ICRAF and the International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI) as principal sources of policy analysis related to development and environment in
East Africa. But there are also many national institutions in the region with highly qualified staff and wide-
ranging activities in policy research and advocacy, including the African Centre for Technology Studies
(ACTS) (see Box 7), Kenya‘s Institute for Development Studies, the Kenyan Institute of Public Policy
Research and Analysis (KIPPRA); in Tanzania, the Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) and
Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA), and the Institute for Resource Assessment (IRA); in Uganda, the
Centre for Basic Research, Todber Tumashamai, and Makerere University; in Ethiopia, the Forum for Social
Studies and Addis Ababa University. Key elements for success in research include adequate manpower and
authority, funding to free researchers from dependence on short-term consultancies, a research strategy that
brings in diverse perspectives, and an ability to look both beyond borders (e.g. to the impact of Chinese and
Indian trade and investment, and to the potentials of regional collaboration), and into futures (e.g. scenario
planning to ensure robust strategy in a globalized world which is increasingly experiencing shocks to
economic, social and environmental systems, and to provide suitable responses to climate and other changes).
The preceding section confirms that there are many exciting and promising initiatives in the region. In order
for these to flourish widely, at a scale that will have a strong impact on economies, livelihoods and
ecosystems, a favorable policy framework and political support from coalitions across sectors will be required.
The question therefore remains of how to develop that robust policy framework and political support during
the current 10-20 year window of unprecedented challenge and opportunity – when East Africa‘s
environmental assets could either continue to be exploited and degraded by (foreign) elites or be managed,
restored and used wisely in building sustainable economies. The challenge is to identify and implement the
concrete strategies for environmental management and development interventions that could create the
conditions to scale up successes. The present section proposes elements of a response to this question and
this challenge.
Any strategy for addressing East Africa‘s rapidly evolving environment and development challenges should
be guided by a clear vision, first, of the type of development that is desired, and second, of the processes that
will best support that development. The challenges faced by the region are indeed formidable. But the voices,
experiences, skills and institutions of the people with whom this study has engaged in the four countries point
towards a vision where, in 20 years, patterns of development could be so transformed that natural resources
would be both conserved and used as drivers of sustainable economic development and poverty reduction.
Initiatives that are making progress towards environment and development goals tend to be based on
integrated perspectives that appreciate synergies between ecological, economic and social contexts at all levels.
The term integration is now widely used, often in varied and vague ways. Integration is about breaking down
boundaries that are no longer useful – and that have in many cases been detrimental to development – and
finding the groupings that are now more appropriate for a specific time and place. Examples of moves
toward integration in this context would include biodiversity conservation into agricultural planning;
population dynamics into environmental planning; environmental health issues into health planning; gender
issues into development and environmental planning; and farmers‘ resource management practices into global
public goods regimes. These examples can be characterized in three ways – integration at landscape level,
integration at livelihood level, and integration of stakeholders in decision-making processes.
A landscape approach employs landscape as a spatially organized framework and unit of analysis for evaluating
relationships between people‘s activities and their ecological context (LMRC 2008). This approach to
planning interventions aims to improve those relationships by focusing on selected landscapes of both
ecological and social significance, as well as the institutions that enable sustainable, long-term landscape
management. The boundaries of the landscape reflect the geographic areas that need to be considered in
responding to key stakeholder interests. The concept is similar to the watershed or catchment approach but may
be defined by other factors, such as habitat for endangered wildlife species, a biological corridor linking
protected forest areas through working landscapes, the foodshed of an urban center, the area supplying
feedstocks for a biofuel project, or the boundaries of a carbon offset project. The landscape approach is
needed particularly in situations where diverse users and managers of natural resources strongly affect the
quality, or access of other stakeholders to, those resources. In East Africa, agricultural development must be
managed in ways that protect watershed services or conservation of economically valuable wildlife, and forest
conservation must be implemented in ways that benefit—or at least do not harm—livelihoods of local
communities. In such cases, planning is far more efficient at a landscape scale rather than farm by farm. (At
the same time, there is a danger that the process of taking particular approaches and instruments to a larger
scale can ignore and lose the participatory, locally grounded dimension of the initial intervention.)
A livelihood approach is concerned with the well-being of individuals, families, households and communities
as a key goal of development and as a major indicator of progress. It recognizes that human systems and
communities are built and depend on ecological, economic, social and cultural assets that must be protected
and enhanced. The approach puts people and their formal and informal institutions at the center of the
development process. It seeks to capitalize on existing strengths but also accepts that change is an inherent
part of the development process. It acknowledges the differences that exist within a given group, according to
sex, age and culture, and aims to understand and improve the links and coherence between local, national and
global institutions, including markets, from the bottom up.
A livelihood approach will also be concerned about rights and voice, seeking to redress imbalances of power
in favor of the weak and marginalized. ―The opposite of the silver bullets that are promoted by many external
organizations is the long-term building of civil rights‖, insists an academic with extensive experience in East
Africa. Faced with the erosion of tenure and access rights, in part as a result of dominant development
policies and processes, new initiatives in sustainable development must place the protection and building of
rights at the center of their strategy.
A participatory multi-stakeholder process respects the concerns, cultural values and priorities of diverse
stakeholders, whether expressed for agriculture, or for health, population, business, etc. It explicitly seeks
ways to pursue potential synergies, and to manage or overcome potential trade-offs between development
and conservation strategy. This approach implies processes to build a shared vision among sectors and
stakeholders that can guide investment programs. In this way, different groups may integrate efforts in
diverse ways: simply joining forces for advocacy purposes; setting up projects whereby investing in one sector
is a prerequisite for obtaining benefits from the other; or joint investments that mobilize greater support by
appealing to different interest groups.
Looking at the issues, the priority needs and the current responses – especially the innovations that may not
yet have large-scale impact but that provide clear alternatives to unsustainable practices and policies, a suitable
strategy would be to invest in the linkages between people, business and natural resources, acting simultaneously on
three fronts:
Support scaling up of integrated, community-based solutions to reduce poverty and sustain
environmental services;
Improve the policy environment and create enabling conditions by catalyzing and promoting cross-
sectoral and futures-based policy analysis, planning and action; and
Mobilize investment for sustainable resource-based enterprises that have the capacity to reduce
poverty, generate growth and also provide greater environmental services on a sustainable basis.
Improved capacity for community-led and local government landscape management is critical to addressing
East Africa‘s escalating environmental and development challenges. Lack of access to knowledge and locally-
appropriate information on improved technologies and management options, coupled with poor knowledge
flows, continue to constrain farming communities in particular. Although farmer organizations and
federations are developing in all four countries, they are still estimated to involve less than a fifth of all farm
households; fewer still receive extension services for production or marketing. Nonetheless, some community
and farmer organizations are managing to synergistically enhance agricultural productivity, watershed and
biodiversity values and human well-being. At the local level, the tendency towards this kind of integration
tends to happen organically where communities relying on natural resource-based livelihoods recognize that
there is no conflict between environment and development, and where such conflict is not being signaled by
outside agencies. But such initiatives must be supported. For example, communities must be trained in
methodologies to manage their own resources and in market opportunities for ecosystem services. They may
require platforms for community-to-community knowledge-sharing and access to small investment funds.
This capacity building will also require a strengthening of local government and intermediary NGOs so that
they can play a facilitation role between the local and regional, national and international governmental and
non-governmental bodies.
This approach is based on the understanding that ―scaling up‖ – one of new keywords in the development
jargon – is much more than expanding the size and reach of an intervention. ―It is much more than taking an
idea that has worked at the micro-level and expecting it to work at the macro-level‖, said a policy analyst with
extensive experience in Africa. It is a complex process that involves understanding and transforming markets,
influencing and reforming policy, establishing new systems and creating favorable conditions at all levels.
Previous sections have identified examples of integrated community-led initiatives that work. However, they
are still typically unknown to each other and are largely ignored by the authorities. These initiatives rarely
move beyond the pilot stage, because external funding stops, they are poorly linked to government programs
or knowledge systems, and the services on which they depend are not institutionalized. Moreover, pilot
activities are poorly networked, so that exchange of knowledge and lessons is limited.
An opportunity exists in the historic changes under way that are creating the political and organizational
context for a major push to scale up these community-based systems. The challenge now is to identify these
decentralization initiatives – many of them now well-established in policy and legal terms – and make them
work. One example is the meaningful participation in mandated community management of forests in
Tanzania. Another is the Ecoagriculture-Kenya Forum and Uganda Ecoagriculture Working Groups –
connecting innovators from farmer and community organizations, government and academia together to
share knowledge to improve management in the home landscapes of group members, and to advocate for
local and national policies that would help to scale up ecoagriculture in the country.
The environmental priority for farmers is training on sustainable agriculture. Farmer organizations must also
develop the capacity to deepen collaboration with ministries of agriculture and continue to support capacity-
building through training-the-trainers initiatives, Farmer Field Schools, farmer-based extension and the
provision of decision support tools. These support-to-farmer groups will be critical for both farm-level
innovations and landscape-level planning that integrate agriculture with water, carbon and biodiversity
management. As one agribusiness leader argued, ―extension needs to be re-shaped with an expanded syllabus
to include soil, water, biodiversity, etc.‖ Farmers can utilize multi-stakeholder platforms within districts and
landscapes, to improve coordination among agencies and NGOs.
A critical component in scaling up integrated development initiatives is the building of capacity ‗in the
middle‘, strengthening the institutions in local government and the intermediary NGOs that translate policy
into action. Ecosystem-wide environmental initiatives spurred by inter-governmental processes (e.g. Nile
Basin Initiative) and international NGOs (e.g. WWF and IUCN) have now acknowledged that a major
constraint to effective implementation is the lack of operational programs with local farming communities,
and they have begun to set up local institutions or links with CBOs. It is not the job of donors to create such
initiatives from scratch. However, they can support models that undertake and coordinate the scaling up
process. This means working with intermediary institutions to build local capacity to assess resources; to
access and use appropriate technologies for information and communication (using local languages); to
provide business training; to organize and supervise local planning processes that integrate environmental,
agricultural and population concerns; to initiate and support innovation platforms that include producers and
researchers, using progressive businesses as champions; and to advocate policy change in support of business
innovation and pro-poor, pro-environment private sector development.
The fact that local organizations offer a real foundation of development needs to be recognized. Effective
local organizations should be considered a real asset at the ‗end of the MDG delivery chain‘: local
government bodies, clinics, schools, magistrates, NGOs, CBOs, etc are in direct touch with poor groups and
‗deliver‘ – rather than central government or any donor. They also focus on empowering poor people –
especially to relate better to authorities, landlords, employers and service providers. Real development
invariably involves the reduction of locally-experienced deprivations and risks – and effective local
organizations help to secure food, energy, education, health, water-sanitation, justice, etc. Thus, in practice,
local organizations‘ staff, resources, knowledge, objectives, incentives, accountability to the poor and long-
term presence explain much ‗aid effectiveness‘. Indeed, it could be said that many aid agencies are only as
effective as the institutions they fund.
There is now a window of opportunity to make a shift within East Africa, away from asset-stripping towards
recapitalizing soils, water and biodiversity, away from resource inefficiencies in water and energy towards
investment in efficient, pro-poor technology, and away from massive unemployment and disenfranchisement
towards creating new, productive jobs and local enterprises. African participation is key: firstly, so that
environmental and social standards match local needs (rather than just the values of e.g. foreign consumers);
and secondly to gain poverty reduction benefits, both as consumers and especially as producers through
employment and enterprise. As expressed by someone involved in promoting new community-based
enterprise in Tanzania, ―the question is not whether we want business or not, it‘s what kind of business we
want‖.
The strategies that can make a difference at this time must focus on improving African capacity to engage in
various natural resource and environmental markets, to shape these markets in ways that are environmentally
sustainable and socially responsible; and to attract and influence untapped and potentially beneficial public
and private investment. Finally, they must aim to influence and improve the national policy frameworks, in
order to help remove the constraints imposed by current policy and practice and to create enabling policy
environments.
A lack of access to long-term financing opportunities is preventing many projects from getting off the
ground, and investors are often unaware of good projects where these exist. Substantial advisory and
brokerage services are therefore necessary to help these pro-poor, environmental-friendly markets. Improved
networking is key for these markets to take off. Functional linkages must be developed between groups
including national business schools, chambers of commerce, local urban and rural groups, international good-
practice networks (e.g. the Global Forest and Trade Network), the leading authorities in natural resource
management at national levels, and – crucially but more difficult – the government-run investment facilitation
services such as the Tanzania Investment Centre or the Private Sector Foundation in Uganda.
Capacity development opportunities and capital should also be available to in-country enterprises, including
poor groups and the informal economy, through improved connections, data, training, (peer) education, and
seed funds for market development. Pilot environmental investments in a range of sectors should be
supported in ways that offer useful lessons and create replicable models. Innovative business and partnership
models should be promoted that reduce the transaction costs of engagement with large numbers of rural
communities (e.g. for carbon and biofuels) and that focus on key markets that develop African and small
farmer comparative advantage – carbon (see below), biodiversity, watershed services, natural products and
tourism, as well as for developing products which African consumers need – notably clean energy and
resource-efficient products.
National and international investment bodies also need advice on environmental investment opportunities in-
country, and on environmental and social standards. Efforts should be made to attract foreign funds and
banks that are socially and environmentally oriented and whose business models are already in line with these
goals.
Community organizations, district and national governments and NGOs should be assisted to leverage new
sources of carbon finance to achieve food security and ecosystem restoration goals, as well as offsets. These
bodies require advisory services and links to carbon buyers. All four countries have promising carbon project
potentials, as well as a high need to improve farmer income, and to recapitalize soils and farm biomass. All
these things bode well, but they have inadequate governance that would guarantee the security of carbon
alongside other environmental and livelihood benefits, and improperly designed projects can actually do more
harm than good. The four countries need to be in a good position to attract both project-level and national
payment transfers, notably the new World Bank-administered climate technology and forest carbon funds, as
well as other schemes governed by both voluntary and post-Kyoto regulatory frameworks alike. These may
include the selling of ‗bundled‘ environmental services in large area-based projects that link biodiversity and
ecosystem conservation with carbon.
It is much more difficult to overcome strict sectoral thinking at the national and international levels than at
the local level. Bureaucracies, in particular, have deep historical roots and are still heavily reinforced by
external donors. But this difficulty does not reduce the importance of national level integration, in policy and
practice. It is the key to creating the enabling environment necessary for integrated development. Policy
integration has succeeded when national centers for policy analysis are strong, cross-sectoral political alliances
with government have been built, development partners have been supportive of locally-led processes, and
links between government, civil society, CBOs, and private sector networks have thrived.
Policy cannot have the desired impact if it remains static. Investigation, innovation and change processes
need to be enshrined in policy reform. All of the countries that have been the focus of this assessment have
now developed comprehensive and poverty reduction strategies and national policies dealing with
environment, population and other sectors, with mandates for improving integration. However, while some
of their language is strong and progressive, gaps and inconsistencies remain. For example, biodiversity
conservation needs to be better integrated into agricultural planning, and environmental health issues into
health planning. Furthermore, while the region‘s economic and environmental context changes rapidly there
is a dire need for long-term horizon-scanning capacity to influence medium-term planning frames.
Recognizing that significant recent advances in policy have derived from multi-stakeholder processes, it will
be important to embrace all stakeholders in enhancing policy capacity and bridging the above disconnects:
national and local policy-makers, community led organizations, bilateral and multilateral agencies and
international foundations.
‗Sustainable development futures‘ partnerships among these actors, if led by selected East African
institutions, could build collective capacity in cross-sectoral, scenario planning and risk analysis work that
contributes directly to policy formulation and the generation of major programs involving government,
business and civil society. Such partnerships would focus on a policy research and advocacy agenda looking
primarily at long-term issues that have strong transnational and trans-disciplinary dimensions.
Research and monitoring of current and future investment patterns and impacts need strengthening,
especially in relation to environmental sustainability and poverty reduction. East African advocates express a
need for support in making the economic case to their own treasuries, and then in constructing appropriate
budgets that integrate environmental investments when they have won that case. They need access to
information on the potentials and limits of their environmental assets, and the costs and benefits of using
them for poverty reduction. They will also benefit from exposure to many ideas now proven for
environmental fiscal reform that can support environment, raise funds, and ensure pro-poor benefits (see e.g.
OECD-DAC 2005).
At the same time, East African advocates could and should play a key role in helping to make the case
internationally for policy change. For example, they could promote the idea of tax incentives by OECD
governments to encourage pension funds to contribute to global public goods such as environmental services
and poverty reduction in developing countries; or to change foreign investment rules so that they require a
certain proportion in the form of micro-loans or micro-insurance.
The burgeoning Poverty, Health, and Environment (PHE) country learning groups of leading community
innovators, researchers and policy makers that are being convened throughout East Africa (see Box 4) are
helping to distil the main lessons from efforts of PHE initiatives and providing a mechanism to communicate
this information. These models are varied and most often involve the integration of sectors beyond ‗P‘, ‗H‘
and ‗E‘ (Haile 2004, Pielemeier 2007). Many organizations are already successfully building and maintaining
relationships across sectors. Even the groups on the leading edge of integration, however, must continue their
move from multisectoral to intersectoral work. This implies a shift from simply bringing together representatives
of each sector on projects towards having them absorb each others‘ messages and integrating these ideas into
their own core work. Experience has also shown that integrated processes are assisted enormously when they
are supported at the highest levels of government.
The next 10 to 20 years will be a critical period for East Africa. Many of the social, economic and
environmental trends identified in this brief study are distressing and must urgently be righted. These changes
must come from an integrated sustainable development agenda that is led nationally and often locally, not by
an idealized international agenda that – like structural adjustment or other recent international imperatives –
becomes yet another driver to which East African stakeholders need to respond or adjust. From now on, the
starting point should be the countries‘ and the stakeholders‘ realities, where these realities are shaped by local
institutions and perspectives. This agenda must reach across sectors and scales of governance, but also work
within the natural ‗laws‘ of ecosystems. Many of the seeds of this integrated resurgence are already
germinating. With wise, strategic policy and investment they will be able to bloom.
This study offers a set of possible options to current and emerging challenges, emphasizing those which are
not currently receiving sufficient attention and that could make a difference – in the lives of people, in the
governance of countries and communities, in the performance of national economies, and in the functioning
of ecosystems on which all of these depend. It is hoped that some of these ideas will prove helpful to actors
within and outside the region.
Alem Hadera Abay, Millennium
Village Project
Yeraswork Admassie, Addis Ababa
University
Hamid Ahmed, Amhara
Development Association
Million Alemayehu, Organization for
the Rehabilitation and Development
of Amhara (ORDA)
Tigist Alemu, Consortium of
Reproductive Health Associations
Kassahun Belachew, Institute of
Biodiversity Conservation
Million Belay, MELCA (Movement
for Ecological Learning and
Community Action) Mahiber
Shewaye Deribe, Federal
Environmental Protection Authority
Sue Edwards, Institute for
Sustainable Development
Masresha Fetene, Addis Ababa
University
Messele Fisseha, Ministry of Water
Resources
Tewoldebrehan Gebregziaber,
Environmental Protection Authority
Alemayehu Gebreylm, Sustainable
Natural Resource Management
Mohamed Gelma, Oromiya
Devlopment Association
Tilahun Giday, Pathfinder
International
Berhanu Gisenbet, Guraghe People's
Self Help Development Organization
Afework Hailu, Ethio-Wetlands and
Natural Resources Association
Bekele Hambissa and Moges
Gobena, Ethiopian Environmental
NGO
Ashewafi Kalefon, Ethiopian
Orthodox Church-Development and
International Church Aid
Community (EOC-DICAC)
Reshad Kemal, Oromia
Environmental Protection Office
Dabie Konshie, Salam Environment
and Development Association
Bedru Lemal, Guraghe People's Self
Help Development Organization
Yared Mekonen, Consultant
Genet Mengistu, Ministry of Finance
and Economic Development
Mieso Nebi, Centre for Development
Fekaumed Negash, Ministry of Water
Resources
Kendie Rufael, EOC-DICAC
Tamiru Sebsibe, Sustainable Land
Use Forum
Sibru Tedla, Addis Ababa University
Markos Teklu, Walta Information
Centre
Tekle Terfolidet, Walta Information
Centre
Hafue Woldu, EOC-DICAC
Zerihun Woldu, Addis Ababa
University
Helen Atshul, Farm-Africa
Mary Wamuyu Baaru, Ministry of
Agriculture
Enock Kanyanya, Nature Kenya
Daniel Karaba, MP, Keruguya/Kutus
constituency
David Kuria Kimani, Kijabe
Environment Volunteers
Wanja Kinuthia, National Museums
of Kenya
Romano Kiome, Ministry of
Agriculture
Eng. Mahboud Maalim, Ministry of
Water and Irrigation
Anita Msabeni, Kenya National
Federation of Agricultural Producers
Patrick Muraguri, Africa 21st Century
Francis K Muthami, Ministry of
Agriculture
Alice Muthoni, Kijabe Environment
Volunteers/Consultant
Joseph Mutua, Kenya, Network for
Dissemination of Agricultural
Technologies
Leah Mwangi, Kijabe Environment
Volunteers
Francis Mwaura, Senior Lecturer &
Environmental Consultant
Eric Nahama, Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources,
Forest Department
Alfred Nderitu, MP, Mwea
constituency
John Maina Nginyangi, Ministry of
Agriculture
Michael Makokha Odera, FAO-
Netherlands Partnership Program
Boniface O. K‘Oyugi, Population
Studies and Research Institute
Ralph L. Roothhaert, Maendeleo
Agricultural Technology Fund
Zaddock M. Syonguh, MP, Nairobi
Judi W. Wakhungu, Africa Centre for
Technology Studies
Ole Petenya Yusfu-Sham, Sompole
Community Trust
Haidari Amani, Economic and Social
Research Foundation
Tamim Amijee, Dar es Salaam
Regional Chamber of Commerce,
Industry and Agriculture
Damian Bell, Sokwe-Asilia
Blandina M. Cheche, Vice-President's
Office
David Erickson, Cullman & Hurt
Community Wildlife Project
Emmanuel E. Hanai, Institute of
Resource Assessement-UDSM
Emmanuel Kallonga, Kahikazi
Catalyst
Amanulas Kibona, Women
Development for Science and
Technology Association
Euster Kibona, Environmental
Protection and Management Services
Idris Kikula, Dodoma University
Feroz Kurji, Researcher/Guide
Oscar Lema, Tanzania Traditional
Energy Development and
Environment Organization
(TATEDO)
Fred Simon Lerise, Professor,
University of Dar es Salaam and
Director, Consulting Environmental
and City Planners
Mark Leveri, Tanganyika Christian
Refugee Service
Servacius Likwelile, Tanzania Social
Action Fund
Edward Loure, Ujamaa Community
Resource Trust
Idda Makawia, Women Development
for Science and Technology
Association
Oswald Mashindano, Economic and
Social Research Foundation
Desderius Mbekenga, Relief to
Development Society
Walter M. Mbunda, UMATI (Family
Planning Association of Tanzania)
Donald Mmari, Research on Poverty
Alleviation
Alais Ole Morindat, Tanzania Natural
Resource Forum
Jackson Muro, Tanzania Pastoralist
Hunters & Gatherers Organization
(TAPHGO)
Janemary Ntawila, Oikos
Cassian Sianga, Tanzania Natural
Resource Forum
Andrew Williams, Tanzania Natural
Resource Forum
Pius Yanda, Institute of Resource
Assessment-UDSM
Okia Clement Akais, Faculty of
Forestry
Allan Amumpe, Sawlog Production
Simon Amunau, Straight Talk
Foundation
Hudson Andrua, National Forestry
Authority
Twesigye Bashir, Advocates Coalition
for Development and Environment
(ACODE)
Mateete Bekunda, Faculty of
Agriculture, Makerere University
Byamukama Biryahwaho, Nature
Harness Initiative
Keizire Boaz Blackie, Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries
Cyprian Ebong, National Agricultural
Research Organisation
Francis Esegu, Forestry Resources
Research Institute (FORRI)
Caleb Gumisiiriza, Uganda National
Farmers Federation
Abuni Joseph, Empowering Forest
Resources Management
Zake Joshua, Environment Alert
John Kabogoza, Faculty of Forestry,
Makerere University
Gladys Kalema, Conservation
Through Public Health
Sara Kayanga, Uganda National
Farmers Federation
Cornelius Kazoora, Consultant,
Sustainable Development Centre
Robert Khaukha, Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries
Denis Kyetere, National Agricultural
Research Organisation
Ronald Lutalo, Environment Alert
Chebet Maikut, Uganda National
Farmers Federation
Josephine Mboga, Sawlog Production
Peter Wamboga Mugirya, Farmers
Voice
Onesmus Mugyenyi, Advocates
Coalition for Development and
Environment
Mathias Mulumba, Uganda National
Farmers Federation
Ruth Biyinzika Musoke, Private
Sector Foundation
Augustine Mwendya, Uganda
National Farmers Federation
Sara Namirembe, Empowering
Forest Resources Management
Rose Nankya, Eco-Trust
Vincent Ntege, Uganda National
Farmers Federation
Geresom Okecho-Ochwo, National
Agricultural Advisory Services
Gershom Onyango, Forestry
Inspection Division
Kityo Peter, National Farmers
Association
Steve Rubanga, Conservation
Through Public Health
Rebecca B. Ssabaganzi, National
Forestry Authority
Rhoda Tumusiime, Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries
Emily Twinamasiko, National
Agricultural Research Organisation
Godber Tumushabe, Advocates
Coalition for Development and
Environment (ACODE)
Joshua Zaake, Environment Alert
W. M. Adams, University of
Cambridge
Filippo Berardi, Imperial College
Lynne Gaffikin, President,
Evaluation and Research
Technologies for Health, Inc
Katherine Homewood,
Anthropology Department,
University College London
Walt Reid, Sahlu Haile, and Sono
Aibe, the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation
John Lynam, Gatsby Foundation
Peter Matlon, Rockefeller
Foundation
Roy Steiner, Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation
Gary Toenniessen, Rockefeller
Foundation
Ken Wilson, Christensen Fund
Michael R. Wright, John D. &
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Fikirte Belete, Pact Ethiopia
Dawit Belew, Plan Ethiopia
Alastair Bradstock, FARM-Africa
David Cook, Jane Goodall Institute
Bantirgu Hailemariam, Canadian
Physicians for Aid and Relief
Kate Jongbloed, Canadian Physicians
for Aid and Relief
Habtamu Jada, Plan International
George Jambiya, WWF Tanzania
Edward Kimakwa, WWF Tanzania
Tiringo k/Gabriel, Canadian
Physicians for Aid and Relief
James P. Leape, WWF International
Bernard Meier, German Agro Action
Mesfin Mengistu, Christian Relief
and Development Association
Simon Milledge, TRAFFIC
Jennifer Morgan, WWF-UK
Daniel Mvella, WWF Tanzania
Dr. Hermann Mwageni, WWF
Tanzania
Lydia Mwakanema, WWF Tanzania
Richard Mwesigwa, CARE-Uganda
Amani Ngusaru, WWF Tanzania
Erasto Njavike, Jane Goodall
Institute
Barbara Pose, CARE Ethiopia
Alice Ruhweza, Katoomba Group
Hussein Sosovele, WWF Tanzania
Patrick Tumusiime, CARE-Uganda
Kelly West, IUCN Eastern Africa
Augusta N. Abate, Food and
Agricultural Organization
Gabriel Batulaine, Embassy of
Finland, Tanzania
Arati Belle, World Bank, Washington
D.C.
Christophe Crepin, TerrAfrica
Oyvind Dahl, Embassy of Norway,
Ethiopia
Antti Erkkilä, Embassy of Finland,
Kenya
Henry Gordon, World Bank,
Tanzania
Joe Hirsch, USAID, Ethiopia
Asulkie Kajuni, USAID, Tanzania
Razi Latif, Delegation of the
European Commission, Tanzania
Kahana Lukumbuzya, Royal Danish
Embassy, Tanzania
Kidest Lulu, USAID, Ethiopia
Saida Mäki-Penttilä, Embassy of
Finland, Kenya
Gertrude Lyatuu, UNDP-Tanzania
Amon Manyama, UNDP-Tanzania
Mateo Marquisio, TerrAfrica
Strike Mkandla, UNEP, Addis Ababa
Catherine Murphy, World Bank,
Tanzania
Victoria Mushi, Canadian
International Development Agency,
Tanzania
Juniper Neill, USAID, Tanzania
Ephraim Nkonya, IFPRI
Christian Peter, The World Bank,
Tanzania
Frank Place, World Agroforestry
Centre
Andrew Preston, UK Dept for
International Development
Diane Russell, USAID, Washington,
D.C.
David Smith, UNEP, Nairobi
Birgit S Steck, SNV - Netherlands
Development Organisation, Tanzania
Brent Swallow, World Agroforestry
Centre
Roy Trivedy, DFID Tanzania Office
Bert Hilhorst, FAO Nile, Uganda
Seyfu Ketema, Director, ASARECA,
Ethiopia
Gaster Kiyingi, Global Water
Partnership, Uganda
Simon Thuo, Global Water
Partnership, Uganda
Gete Zekele, Global Mountain
Programme, Ethiopia
48
AGRA. AGRA and the MCC launch a historic collaboration to provide Africa's farmers with technologies, infrastructure
and financing. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. 11 June 2008. New York, Rockefeller Foundation.
http://www.rockfound.org/about_us/press_releases/2008/061108mcc_agra_pr.shtml
ASARECA. 2005. Natural Resources Management for agriculture in Eastern and Central Africa: ASARECA NRM
Strategy 2005-2015. Entebbe, Uganda, Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and
Southern Africa.
Assey, P., S. Bass, B. Cheche, D. Howlett, G. Jambiya, I. Kikula, S. Likwelile, A. Manyama, E. Mugurusi, R. Muheto, and
L. Rutasitara. 2007. Environment at the heart of Tanzania‘s development: lessons from Tanzania‘s National
Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty. London, International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Bolnick, J., H.M. Kayuni, R. Mabala, G. McGranahan, D. Mitlin, S. Nkhoma, J. Oucho, A. Sabri, S. Sabry, D.
Satterthwaite, M. Swilling, C. Tacoli, R.I.C. Tambulasi, and M. van Donk. 2006. A pro-poor urban agenda for
Africa, clarifying ecological and development issues for poor and vulnerable populations. A report to the Ford
Foundation. Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series, Urban Change-2, London, International Institute for
Environment and Development.
Bossel A. and S. Norfolk. 2007. Global forest product chains: A Mozambique case study identifying challenges and
opportunities for China through a wood commodity chain sustainability analysis. Report to the International
Institute for Environment and Development. Maputo, Mozambique, Terra Firma Lda.
Canby, K., J. Hewitt, L. Bailey, E. Katsogros, and S. Xiufang. 2008. Forest Products Trade between China and Africa:
An Analysis of Imports and Exports. China and the Global Market for Forest Products: Implications for Forest
and Livelihoods.Washington D.C., Forest Trends and Global Timber.
Catacutan, D. Ed. 2008. Landcare: local action-global progress. South Melbourne, Australia, Landcare International.
Collet, L. and A. Jarvis. 2008. Spatial assessment of agriculture, wildlife, and poverty in Eastern Africa. A report to
Ecoagriculture Partners. Washington, D.C., Draft.
De Souza, R., J. Williams, and F. Meyerson. 2003. Critical Links: Population, Health and the Environment. Population
Bulletin 58(3). Washington, D.C., Population Reference Bureau.
Doussou-Bodjrenou, J., A. Mkindee, T. Byakola, C. Chopokolo, M. Matongo, E. Pschorn-Strauss, and T. Anderson. July
2007. Agrofuels in Africa –The impacts on land, food and forests. Case Studies from Benin, Tanzania, Uganda, and
Zambia by the African Biodiversity Network: Nature-Tropicale, Benin Envirocare, Tanzania Climate and
Development Initiatives, Uganda, Matongo Mundia and Clement Chipokolo, Zambia.
Environmental Health, USAID. 2007. Population, Health and Environment (PHE) East Africa Network. Washington,
D.C., USAID. http://www.ehproject.org/phe/phe-e_africa.html
FAO. FAOSTAT Online Statistical Service. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed
25 June 2008.
49
Haile, S. 2004. Population, Development and Environment in Ethiopia. Environmental Change and Security Program,
Special Report. 10:43-51. Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars.
Hamilton, K., M. Sjardin, T. Marcello, and G. Xu. 2008. Forging a frontier: State of the voluntary carbon markets 2008.
Washington, D.C., Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance.
Hanson, S. 2008. Backgrounder: African Agriculture. New York, Council on Foreign Relations.
ILRI. 2006. Mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa. Report to the Department for International
Development. Nairobi, Kenya, International Livestock Research Institute in collaboration with the Energy and
Resources Institute and the African Centre for Technology Studies.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Kapchorwa District Landcare Team. 2006. Kapchorwa Landcare chapter, Kapchorwa District, Uganda. Nairobi, Kenya,
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/landcareinternational/news/events/2006_07_events/group_awards_kapc
horwa_uganda.pdf
Katoomba Group. 2007. PES Assessments and Case Studies. Washington, D.C., Katoomba Group.
Katoomba Group. Regional Websites: East and Southern Africa. Washington, D.C., Katoomba Group. Accessed June
25 2008.
Lane, A. and A. Jarvis. 2007. Changes in climate will modify the geography of crop suitability: Agricultural Biodiversity
can help with adaptation. Journal of Semi-Arid Tropical Agricultural Research 4(1): 12.
LMRC. 2008. Landscape Measures Resource Center. Washington, D.C., Ecoagriculture Partners and Cornell University
Ecoagriculture Working Group. www.landscapemeasures.org.
Macqueen D. 2007. Cutting edge: how community forest enterprises led the way on poverty reduction and avoided
deforestation. London, International Institute for Environmental and Development.
Magnowski, D. and V. Fertey. Africa finance chiefs eye consensus on China funds. 1 August 2008. Reuters Africa.
Milder, J., J. McNeely, S. Shames, and S. Scherr. 2008. Biofuels and ecoagriculture: can bioenergy production enhance
landscape-scale ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 6(2):
105–121.
Milledge, S.A.H., I.K. Gelvas, and A. Ahrends. 2007. Forestry, governance, and national development: Lessons learned
from a logging boom in Southern Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa,
Development Partners Group, and Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
Mortimore, M. and F. Harris. 2003. Do small farmers‘ achievements contradict the nutrient depletion scenarios for
Africa? Land Use Policy 22(1): 43–56.
OECD-DAC. 2005. Environmental fiscal reform for poverty reduction. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) Guidelines and Reference Series. Paris, OECD.
50
Pielemeier, J. 2007. Lessons from the first generation of integrated population, health, and environment projects. Focus
on population environment and security 12. Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, USAID.
Point Carbon. 2008. Carbon Market Analyst ‗Outlook for 2008‘. Oslo, Norway, Point Carbon.
Scherr, S., A. White, D. Kaimowitz. 2003. A new agenda for forest conservation and poverty reduction: Making markets
work for low-income producers. Washington, D.C., Forest Trends and the Centre for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR).
Steinberg, S. Financial speculators reap profits from global hunger. 24 April 2008. Montreal, Centre for Research on
Globalization.
ten Kate, K., J. Bishop, and R. Bayon. 2004. Biodiversity offsets: views, experience, and the business case. Gland,
IUCN and Insight Investment.
Tiffen, M., M. Mortimore and F. Gichuki. 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya. Chichester, UK,
John Wiley and Sons.
World Bank 2007. World Development Indicators: 2007. Washington, D.C., World Bank.
World Bank. 2008. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, D.C., World Bank.
WRI. Earthtrends Environmental Information. Washington, D.C. World Resources Institute. Accessed 25 June 2008.
WWF. 2006. Climate change impacts in East Africa, a review of the scientific literature. Gland, Switzerland, World Wide
Fund for Nature.
51
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the United Nations Development Programme. 2004. Millennium
Development Goals Report: Challenges and prospects for Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia and the United Nations Development Programme.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 2002. Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program.
Washington, D.C., International Monetary Fund.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 2005. Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program Status
Report. Washington, D.C., World Bank
Government of Uganda and the United Nations Development Programme. 2003. The Millennium Development Goals
Progress Report for Uganda. New York, United Nations Development Programme and the Government of
Uganda.
Government of Uganda. 2004. Ugandan Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) 2004/05-2007/08. Washington, D.C.,
International Monetary Fund.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. 2006. Ethiopia: Building on Progress, A Plan for Accelerated and
Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), 2005/06 – 2009/2010. Addis Ababa, Ministry of Finance and
Economic Development.
Republic of Kenya. 2004. Investment Programme for the Economic Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation
2003-2007. Washington, D.C., International Monetary Fund.
Republic of Kenya. 2005. Millennium Development Goals: Status report for Kenya 2005. Nairobi, Kenya, Republic of
Kenya.
United Republic of Tanzania. 2001. IDT/MDG Progress. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
United Republic of Tanzania. 2005. National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (MKUKUTA). Dar es
Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.
52
ACTS Africa Centre for Technology Studies
AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
CBO Community-based organization
CCBA Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
DFID UK Department for International Development
EAC East African Community
EP Ecoagriculture Partners
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GDP Gross domestic product
GNS Gross national savings
HDI Human Development Index
IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature (formerly the World Conservation Union)
KADLACC Kapchorwa District Landcare Chapter
KENVO Kijabe Environmental Volunteers
KG Katoomba Group
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MKUKUTA National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (Tanzania)
53
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa‘s Development
NGO Non-governmental organization
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ODA Official development assistance
PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (Ethiopia)
PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan (Uganda)
PEP Poverty and Environment Partnership
PES Payments for environmental services
PHE Population, health and environment
PRESA Pro-poor rewards for environmental services in Africa
REDD Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation
RELMA Regional Land Management Unit
SLM Sustainable land management
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States dollar
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
Download a free copy of this electronic publication at the Ecoagriculture Partners website: www.ecoagriculture.org.
ISBN-13: 978-0-9793871-2-8